You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.
Note: Article updated to better explain 1 or 2 points.

There were a few loud users complaining about a recent Linux release where you had to pay for the Linux version on Steam, even if you already own the Windows version. I’ve spoken to a few people and have some thoughts on it.

First of all: I fully agree porters should be paid for their hard work, that’s absolutely not in question at all. It’s a reason why I so heavily dislike grey-market key resellers. If you do the work — you should be paid.

I said at the release of the game that prompted this (Arma: Cold War Assault) that I was torn on the issue, as it’s a difficult topic to address. Difficult because I could easily anger every side of the argument and end up in some hot water myself. Not only that, but I am personally too used to just getting a Linux version for free just for owning a Windows copy from years ago. I purchased it myself personally, because I appreciate the work and because it is stupidly cheap.

Part of the issue is that Valve used to promote “Steamplay”, where you buy once and automatically get it on all platforms Steam supports. So, Valve are partly to blame for issues like this. While I like that system myself, it does have flaws when it comes to situations like this. Valve have actually removed any mention of Steamplay from store items, so perhaps over time people won’t expect to get all versions for free. It is a weird expectation in reality the more I think about it, to get something for nothing like that. I know you can argue all you like about free software and so on, but that’s a different argument for a different day.

It’s a very tough situation to be in for both a developer and a Linux gamer, since it could potentially put people off dual-booting or fully switching to Linux, if you have to pay for your games again. I don’t think there’s a one-size fits all approach here, since a lot of games may require little effort to bring over to Linux. Not all games should require a purchase per platform, but I think it should be an option at times and it should be welcomed. Even something simple like an upgrade option, that way we can still ensure the porter directly gets their due cut of the money for their work.

You could also argue that part of the hook of SteamOS and Steam Machines were that you got access to your library of games that supported Linux. An interesting point of course, but I think it’s also important that the games are just available there, even to buy again, at the very least. There’s also the fact that Steam Machines haven’t really taken off, so that’s quite a weak argument to have anyway.

I think paying essentially peanuts for a really old game that’s been slightly updated and ported to a new platform, well, yeah you should pay for that. You never paid for anything but the original version you got, so it would make sense to pay for something that is essentially different, wouldn’t it? We aren’t talking about a simple patch here, but a game ported to a different platform.

That goes for new games as well, not just older titles. Let’s face it, you don’t buy a game for a PlayStation 4 and demand an Xbox One version as well, do you? No, you don’t. That’s a hypothetical question: think about it even if you don’t own a console. It takes time, effort and many hours of testing to ensure it works correctly on each platform. Then you have the very real ongoing support overhead on top of that. The same can be said for ports of newer AAA-like Linux ports. They often take months, a year even to port and then you need to again add in the testing and support costs.

I thought about all the “no tux, no bux”, the “I only buy/play games on Linux” arguments and all the similar sayings people use that essentially gets thrown out the window if you suddenly refuse to buy a brand new (to Linux) game, just because you own it on another different platform, or because purchasing it won’t give you a version already available on a platform you apparently don’t care about.

I adore the work that Virtual Programming, Aspyr Media, Feral Interactive and others do in bringing games to Linux. They shouldn’t have to deal with a shit-storm every time there’s not a sale, or you have to pay to have it on your platform of choice. It’s the icing on the entitlement cake and it doesn’t taste nice, quite sour in fact.

Every time I see “will only get it on sale” or the instant “will it be released with a sale?!” posts I really do fear for our platform as gaming choice. Why is a Linux port worth so much less to you? It damn well shouldn’t be. We are gaming on a platform that has to prove itself to survive in what’s quite a hostile environment full of publishers with dollar signs for eyes. If we consistently pay less, create storms about small issues like this, then again, I fear for our future.

Faced with the option of paying extra for a Linux port, even if I have a Windows version I’m never going to use, over no Linux port, the choice seems obvious doesn’t it? If the original developer/publisher doesn’t want to deal with it at all, but isn’t averse to someone else handling all of it, then the only route to a Linux port could mean an entirely separated Linux version. I’m okay with that and I hope more people will be in time too.

If Bethesda turned around to a porting house and said “Okay, we will let you 100% handle Fallout 4 for Linux, but the contact is that you sell it yourselves separately to ours”. Would you turn away from it? I would embrace the crap out of that despite owning a copy for Windows (free with my GPU). Fallout 4 on Linux, yes please. I would enjoy metaphorically throwing money at my screen full price for that on Linux. That and a great many others. I'm not saying it should be the same price as the original Windows release, to be clear on that, since it is a port and not an entire new game.

We should consider ourselves lucky to get a free Linux version for a years old purchase on Windows, not outright expect it and be hostile if it isn’t free.

Please Note: Our comments section is always open for debate, but manners cost nothing. I expect a certain level of decorum on hot topics like this. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Editorial
24 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
173 comments
Page: «12/18»
  Go to:

Leopard Mar 15, 2017
Quoting: bubexelYour ideas are just a problem to people to give a try linux. I think companies should pay a fixed price to porting companies and not make them gain cash for the sales.

Then that is porting companies problems.They must do better contracts,why punishing users because of that?

I don't want to say this but these companies are not so Linux dedicated,which is why you stop worshipping them.

Let's take a look at the Aspyr.Look at their direction.They just tied up with some little studios and started promoting Windows and XboxOne versions of this games first.If others get a chance like this,they will storm away from Linux at a glance.The reason of they're porting games to Linux,there is not so much competition here.

They're all doing it for money and they can live on with current payments.

If you are looking for a real hero;take a look for Loki.

Even Valve is not doing that for favor of Linux;they simply scared from MS Store and most possible place was Linux.

If MS says that 'we're closing MS Store' Valve will also stop SteamOS development.
alka.setzer Mar 15, 2017
Like was said in the article I'm not expecting to get a ps4 version of some game when I buy a PC version.
That said I think that while you are on the same distribution platform (steam, origin, itch, etc) at most you should only pay a differential if you already own the game, that way everyone would benefit.
Porting is work that should be paid for but the base game (assets, code, etc) was already done and paid for.
I'm also fine with getting free stuff if it's being offered :)
scaine Mar 15, 2017
View PC info
  • Contributing Editor
  • Mega Supporter
Such a scary level of entitlement in these comments. I've bought the same album on record, then tape, then CD. I've bought the same film on VHS and then on DVD and even rarely on Bluray. I've bought a game on retail, then later bought it again (albeit on sale or bundle) on Steam or GoG.

No, it's not ideal. Yes, I'd prefer this wasn't necessary. But if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have paid money.

Some good points and discussions on this, but enough with the moral outrage. Even when it's justified, ultimately, it's still petty. Don't want to pay again? Jesus, then don't. Move on. Literally thousands of better ways to spend your money.
F.Ultra Mar 15, 2017
View PC info
  • Supporter
Quoting: Leopard
Quoting: bubexelYour ideas are just a problem to people to give a try linux. I think companies should pay a fixed price to porting companies and not make them gain cash for the sales.

Then that is porting companies problems.They must do better contracts,why punishing users because of that?

I don't want to say this but these companies are not so Linux dedicated,which is why you stop worshipping them.

Let's take a look at the Aspyr.Look at their direction.They just tied up with some little studios and started promoting Windows and XboxOne versions of this games first.If others get a chance like this,they will storm away from Linux at a glance.The reason of they're porting games to Linux,there is not so much competition here.

They're all doing it for money and they can live on with current payments.

If you are looking for a real hero;take a look for Loki.

Even Valve is not doing that for favor of Linux;they simply scared from MS Store and most possible place was Linux.

If MS says that 'we're closing MS Store' Valve will also stop SteamOS development.

The porting companies have to survive somehow, they are not charities! They cannot get better contracts because the Linux gaming market simply isn't that big so it does not matter one bit how things should be in a perfect world because we are not in that perfect world (at least not yet).

The simple truth is that if we want to have games ported then we must give the porting companies some incentive to do so or they are forced to search for other markets (like OSX) or simply close shop. There simply is no way around this at the moment.

That said I'm personally not troubled by this since I have never bought any games on or for Windows ever.
Leopard Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: F.Ultra
Quoting: Leopard
Quoting: bubexelYour ideas are just a problem to people to give a try linux. I think companies should pay a fixed price to porting companies and not make them gain cash for the sales.

Then that is porting companies problems.They must do better contracts,why punishing users because of that?

I don't want to say this but these companies are not so Linux dedicated,which is why you stop worshipping them.

Let's take a look at the Aspyr.Look at their direction.They just tied up with some little studios and started promoting Windows and XboxOne versions of this games first.If others get a chance like this,they will storm away from Linux at a glance.The reason of they're porting games to Linux,there is not so much competition here.

They're all doing it for money and they can live on with current payments.

If you are looking for a real hero;take a look for Loki.

Even Valve is not doing that for favor of Linux;they simply scared from MS Store and most possible place was Linux.

If MS says that 'we're closing MS Store' Valve will also stop SteamOS development.

The porting companies have to survive somehow, they are not charities! They cannot get better contracts because the Linux gaming market simply isn't that big so it does not matter one bit how things should be in a perfect world because we are not in that perfect world (at least not yet).

The simple truth is that if we want to have games ported then we must give the porting companies some incentive to do so or they are forced to search for other markets (like OSX) or simply close shop. There simply is no way around this at the moment.

That said I'm personally not troubled by this since I have never bought any games on or for Windows ever.

We're granting them money via buying from their store.But it shouldn't be asked for a person who migrates from Windows and bought it from there:If you want to play this game;you will need to pay a fee.This will be a huge barrier for people who wants to migrate.

Also i'm on Linux 2 years and i'm buying games on Linux.So i'm supporting them,what is that all about?

You're just wanting them to squeeze more.

Also this 'i port the game but i don't care if you bought it on Windows' thing will only push existing Linux gamers to using Steam via Wine.People have so many games on their library. Personally,i have 200 titles and only 71 of them is Linux compatible. So what is my fault about that huh?

If they want to gain more;then they must grant that day 1 releases. Fair deal isn't it?

Oh,wait.They can't do that.For example Feral cannot deal with WB and release Shadow of War for Linux at day one.Game will be released on this summer.

Look,we're talking about mostly late releases.Look at that Arma thing.It is fucking 15 years old. I promise that i will wait new games comes onto Linux 6 months after Windows,but games are mostly coming after years;when other people dispose them so early.But no;mostly that is not the case.


Last edited by Leopard on 16 March 2017 at 12:04 am UTC
Ads20000 Mar 16, 2017
Agree with everything you said Liam
Nor Mantis Mar 16, 2017
I look at games much like I look at music. When I was a kid I purchased records only. Then I got a car and wanted to listen while driving, so I bought the same music on tape. Then CD's came and I bought the same music again. Then MP3 came in and I paid to download. Now records are back in and once again, I am buying the same music I love.
TheRiddick Mar 16, 2017
Then you and others who look at it like that are shortsighted I'm sorry to say.

Its about platforms, CD VHS MP3 are all different media platforms that can run on different devices. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS PC, PC is NOT multiple platforms, it is ONE! GET IT? I hope so.

But like I said I wouldn't have a issue paying a DLC cost for certain games, but I can see peoples arguments where if EVERY developer did the whole PAY DOUBLE for Linux thing then it will basically kill the chances for the OS in the future. You can expect lots of complaints and refunds to be had. BIG mess!


Last edited by TheRiddick on 16 March 2017 at 2:53 am UTC
Comandante Ñoñardo Mar 16, 2017
Quoting: Aryvandaar
Quoting: Comandante ÑoñardoIf You switched from Windows for never come back, the best way to support Linux is to forget about the Steam account from your windows era, open a new Steam account and buy the games again.

I fail to understand your reasoning here. If you buy a game on Linux and play it on Linux it counts as a Linux sale. Why do you need a new account only for Linux?

It seems that you missed the part of my post were I said that I have TWO machines: One with a legit Windows 7 and another with Ubuntu...

I don't believe in dual boot. I prefer to have the things separated. That's why I have two steam accounts.


Quoting: finaldesteven Microsoft are now starting to allow Xbox players to play on PC as even they see the benefit of cross platform play.
Maybe because the Xbox One IS a Windows machine?... Obviously "Cross platform" play between Windows 10 and Xbox ONE will be easy.
Adept Mar 16, 2017
A real solution to this issue on Steam requires Valve, the publishers (lumped together with the original developers), and the porters to resolve properly. It shouldn't require buying a second copy of the game when it is ported to Linux months or years later to reward the porter. Instead, steam users should get to pick their primary platform for each game. If a game is only available on Windows, the primary platform at the time of purchase would be Windows (maybe with an option to indicate they'd really prefer an alternate platform). If the game is ported to Linux at a later date, users should be able to switch their primary platform for the game to Linux at that time and play it on Linux. For each user who switches, the porters should then be reimbursed by the publisher and/or Valve from proceeds of future sales of the game where the primary platform is Windows.

This arrangement would benefit everyone involved. The publisher would likely make more money when the game releases since more users would buy games they're excited about before the game price is reduced, even if it isn't yet available on their preferred platform. Porters would get paid for their work. Users wouldn't need to be concerned about waiting an indeterminate amount of time for unannounced or delayed ports, or whether the keys they buy from a distributor are Windows-only keys. And, Valve would be getting more games compatible with Steam machines.

Until then, I don't worry too much about porters getting paid since there is a lot of good will toward porters by Linux users. When Feral ports an older game to Linux that I already own, it makes me much more likely to buy a Feral ported game that I don't yet have. For example, I have bought copies of Tomb Raider, Mad Max, XCOM 2, and Total War: Warhammer (and probably more) after Feral ported them and I have not yet had time to play any of them (and it is very possible I may never find the time to play them all). Had Feral not ported them, I probably only would have bought one of them.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.